On September 16, 29-year-old “Essam” and a group of friends blanketed lower Manhattan with posters designed to look like official New York Police Department signage. “Drones: Protection When You Least Expect It,” read the slogan below simple ideograms of families running from unmanned aerial vehicles. Essam and his team disguised themselves as employees of the outdoor advertising firm Van Wagner, which manages the advertising space on bus stations and kiosks throughout the city. All told, they swapped out about 100 ads.

“We see this trend throughout history of military technology always coming to the civilian world,” the Army veteran told Animal New York. He says his goal is for the conversation about domestic police use of drones “to reach a mainstream level where we are talking about this at the dinner table.”

Essam Attia, 29, was hit with 56 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument, grand larceny possession of stolen property and weapons possession after allegedly having an unloaded .22-caliber revolver under his bed at his Manhattan apartment when he was arrested early Wednesday.

He posted bail, which was set at $10,000 bond or $2,500 cash, and is due back in Manhattan Criminal Court on Dec. 3.

Attia hoped to generate some awareness and kickstart discussion about the increasing prevalence of law enforcement drone usage. Unfortunately, it looks as though the NYPD is only interested in providing its narrative, one that is free from criticism or transparency. It also seems to be particularly bad at actual "police work." Essam signed many of the posters with his artist signature ("ESSAM") and participated in a barely-anonymous interview and yet it took a "weeks-long manhunt" to track him dow.

Calling his lookalike posters "forged" is stretching the truth to fit a hefty criminal charge, one that appears to have been levied solely out of spite. Perhaps if Essam had just placed his posters over the NYPD's, he wouldn't also be facing the grand larceny charge, but that's just quibbling over theoretical outcomes. The larger issue is the First Amendment. No one ever guaranteed free speech without consequences, but it does seem like this pursuit of an artist who honestly did nothing more than make more New Yorkers more aware of their PD's tactics has very little to do with bringing a criminal to justice, and everything to do with harshly shutting down criticism in order to deter further critiques of the NYPD.

I know I'll probably catch flack for this, but I really disagree with what he did.

He broke into the Van Wagner advert boxes and replaced the contents. It's not like he stapled them to telephone poles, or somewhere else public notices are commonly posted.

Do I think the charges are overblown? Yes. I'd equate it more with trespass and vandalism, but I still don't think this is the Free Speech issue it would be if he'd posted them somewhere more socially acceptable.

Re:

It's not like he stapled them to telephone poles, or somewhere else public notices are commonly posted.

Even though everyone does this, it is also illegal to put a sign on a telephone pole, street sign, etc. without permission from the government in many places around the country. As are most signs placed in the medians along highways and similar places.

if he'd posted them somewhere more socially acceptable.

Which obviously would not have had the reach, exposure, and impact of what he did. While he may have broken the law, I personally support civil disobediance to draw attention to laws, policies, and actions performed by the government which may not be in line with protecting the citizen's freedoms.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

He is one member of the public. He needs to run the decision of what to do with the property by the rest of them. Thankfully instead of getting individual, unanimous sign-off you just need the decision of their elected representative(s).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The difference between this guy's penalty and the next guy who just smashed one of these boxes is the first ammendment issue here.

The fake charges over and above what is deserved is exactly what is being used here to attempt to silence anyone this guy and anyone who might believe that getting their message heard is worth the legal consequences.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm just saying the comment "who honestly did nothing more than make more New Yorkers more aware of their PD's tactics" is leaving out the fact that he (allegedly) broke into someone else's property to do it. He is not "honestly doing nothing more than making a public statement" -- in fact, the way he did it was fairly dishonest.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The use of drones without public discussion completly dwarves what crimes this guy has alegedly been "accused" of.......this is a political arrest, and those here willing to put this guy out for breaking a law......then perhaps some of you can explain why your leaders deserve special treatment, for crimes that are vastly more serious

Re:

Yes, you will catch flak for this.

They are not charging him with breaking into the advert boxes and replacing the contents. They are also apparently not charging any of the people who helped him. It's not even clear how much of a role he had in the actual swapping of the signage. Instead, they've charged only him with a bizarre set of crimes which you admit are inappropriate. Yet you seem to believe it's OK to convict him of something—anything—because you don't like the fact that the advert boxes were broken into.

What's worse, the abridgment of his free speech rights, or the injustice of a public which won't accept that he should not be punished at all if he is not found guilty, in a court of law, of the exact crimes with which he has been charged? The innocent—that is, those who haven't been found guilty in court—must go free (and ideally shouldn't be put through the wringer in the first place), even if they actually done something wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a petty vandal or a terrorist mastermind being put on the stand.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Let's forget the missing charges and look at the reported charges, shall we?

Criminal possession of a forged instrument - That would be his own posters which have the NYC and NYPD marks on them, presumably calling the misuse of the marks 'forgery.' That's a huge one to actually prove. If I slap a Nabisco mark on my bag of cookies, is that forgery? We'll have to see, but I don't think so.

Grand larceny possession of stolen property - That depends on how much those posters are worth. All they have to do is prove what they paid for each one to make this one stick, so likely a valid charge, ridiculous as it may seem to us.

Weapons possession - For a .22 caliber hand gun that was unloaded? Not a felony offense, I would think. Just an added slap in the face. If it's unregistered it might stick. Otherwise, yeah, mostly a non-starter without proving that he had it in his possession while he was committing his criminal mischief.

Re: Re:

> Yet you seem to believe it's OK to convict him of something—
> anything—because you don't like the fact that the advert boxes
> were broken into.

No, he doesn't support charging the guy merely because he doesn't like something. He clearly said that it's appropriate to charge him with something, because breaking into and vandalizing private property-- and yes, the ad boxes are the property of the advertising agency-- is a crime.

He also never claimed it would be appropriate to charge him with just 'anything' as you claimed. You're being rather disingenuous here.

Re:

Yes, you will catch flak for this.

They are not charging him with breaking into the advert boxes and replacing the contents. They are also apparently not charging any of the people who helped him. It's not even clear how much of a role he had in the actual swapping of the signage. Instead, they've charged only him with a bizarre set of crimes which you admit are inappropriate. Yet you seem to believe it's OK to convict him of something—anything—because you don't like the fact that the advert boxes were broken into.

What's worse, the abridgment of his free speech rights, or the injustice of a public which won't accept that he should not be punished at all if he is not found guilty, in a court of law, of the exact crimes with which he has been charged? The innocent—that is, those who haven't been found guilty in court—must go free (and ideally shouldn't be put through the wringer in the first place), even if they've actually done something wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a petty vandal or a terrorist mastermind being put on the stand.

Re: Re:

Wow. Way to read *way* more into it than what I said.

I said I thought what they were charging him with was wrong.

I stated what crimes seemed more accurate based on the description of events in the article. Trespass, for breaking into the private property advert boxes, and Vandalism, for replacing their posters with his own.

Who's saying he should be punished whether he's guilty or not? It certainly wasn't me. I can think his actions were wrong while simultaneously thinking the treatement he's getting from the authority is way off base. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

If I ran a storefront, and somebody broke in to plaster my windows with their posters, I wouldn't classify that as protected under Free Speech. They have a right to put out whatever message they want. They do *not* have a right to do it with my property.

Re: I'll get flack

Yes you will. It was illegal to throw privately owned tea into Boston Harbor. It was illegal, treason even to take up arms against the British Military backed Oligarchy, it was illegal to print anything critical of the oligarchy or even point out that it existed. it was illegal to smuggle private property (slaves) north to freedom. It was also the right moral & good thing to do every time. Be ashamed to call yourself an American Patriot. It is in your case a lie.

Re: Re:

Media Coverage

I would have to assume him getting charged with these kinds of crimes was part of his plan to get media coverage. It's hard to believe anyone who understands the problems of the NYPD using drones would not know what their reaction would be. Including his name on the posters and taking interviews would just add to the evidence that he expected to be caught and charged.

Re: Re: Forgery

Re: Forgery

Pretty sure that's just 56 copies of the ad you see in the article. The state is arguing, basically, that a moron in a hurry would think they were real NYPD ads which, when it comes to government stuff, makes them forged instruments.

Re: Re: Forgery

The article indicates more than 100 poster replacements. So, I don't think the 56 counts were the posters. In addition, the moron in a hurry has nothing to do with forgery - forgery requires an attempt to defraud, and I do not think anyone could argue (with a straight face) that he intended to pass his posters off as originals.

Re: Re: Re: Forgery

I know the phrase is from trademark disputes but it's similar to what the state is arguing here, that there's intent to pass them off as official. I know that's insane but they're still charging him with it.

Re: Re: Re: Forgery

Re: Re: Forgery

That will be an interesting argument to make. 'We believe that a moron in a hurry will currently thinks that the city police force would use drones to hunt down and shoot missiles at a family.' Doesn't that mean that they are admitting that they have a bigger problem that is self created?

You see people without power using hyperbole to make a point is fine, police using hyperbole to get to someone is just wrong.

I do agree that he trespassed/vandalized or caused minor damaged to private property owned by somebody else and he should pay for it, but trying hard to increase the penalties just because you don't like what the guy has to say is just wrong.

Re:

I spent a few days in Zucotti park last year while vacationing. It was an eye opening experience. I always though people talking about a police state in this country were exaggerating until I witnessed it with my own eyes.

Sort of reminds me how important the internet really is. While the physical world would hardly take notice of such fantastic political art created and distributed on the web, the transition into the physical world causes general craziness to take hold of certain people.

It *is* important if it's on the web, but that is mostly preaching to the choir. It seems that political art about technology is more effective when physical. Wonder how long that will last?

Is it a police thing?

So this makes the second police action recently trying for the prestigious 'Ironic Actions Award'(the first of course being the 'soldiers died for your freedoms, so we're going to lock you up for exercising them' lot mentioned a while back).

Do they think it's a competition or something, and really want the award to show off to people?

A few points from someone who actually works on drones

1. You can't use an official police emblem on a non-official advertisement. It's the paper equivalent of impersonating an officer.
2. Police already use helicopters.
3. The NYPD doesn't even have drones.
4. Police already use helicopters.
5. No police drones are armed. Period.
6. Police already use helicopters.
7. No police drones are autonomous.
8. Police already use helicopters.
9. The FAA is unlikely to ever allow usage of autonomous drones over a city.
10. Police already use helicopters.

Yes, there needs to be a conversation about the future of domestic drone use. It's already occurring in academic circles. However, this guy is going about it in an overly sensationalist way, and broke several laws to do it. This isn't civil disobedience. It's muckraking.

Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

> You aren't really familiar with the meaning of the term
> "muckraking," are you?

Whether he is or not, you didn't bother to address his more salient point-- that the police already use helicopters.

Since any potential police drones will not be armed, despite what this 'artist' claims, what the hell is the difference between a cop in a helicopter with a camera on it and a cop flying a small plane with a camera on it?

Re: Re: Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

Personally I believe the artist is full of s., but still it doesn't justify the actions the NYPD took against him, he was exercising his First Amendment and he may have broke some minor laws for doing it for which he should pay, but he didn't did all that stuff they say he did either so he shouldn't be bullied into compliance by authorities, he should be called out by the public, the police should intervene if this ends up in violence which probably won't.

Prank artist do a lot more and they don't get the book thrown at them, but because it is someone critiquing the police this is now right?
I don't believe it is.

Re: A few points from someone who actually works on drones

1. Its a prank even if it is not all those people impersonating police officer on TV should be also charged no?
2. Its a prank.
3. Yet.
4. So?
5. Not yet, wait and see sniper drones near a SWAT team near you any day now.
6. So?
7. Not yet and how long will stay that way?
8. So?
9. FAA unlikely not the same as will not.
10. So?

Is the phrase "Police already use helicopters." some sort of sausage filling?

Muckraking or not he deserves his right to speak freely, just like the White supremacists, young boy lovers, churches and everybody else that is on the fringe of society, is not up to any government to take action against those people is up to people inside their communities to find a way to deal with them in a non-violent fashion, and without using brute force (i.e. law enforcement, thugs, etc)

nullification

I have no problems with what he did.
If the jury isn't hand-picked to aid conviction by choosing tax-feeders for it, AND if the judge doesn't lie and tell jurists how they "must" find- there is no way they'd convict him.

Of course it always seems that prosecutors choose biased juries of sheeplets on the government's pay. Then a judge lies to them and says "If you believe that the defendant did x, y and z, then you MUST FIND him guilty.

The beauty of a jury system as originally envisioned is that if merely one man in twelve believes strongly that a "criminal" did right, not wrong, that jurist can keep the man from being locked into a cage for his deed, regardless of what bs laws and procedural rules the political class promulgates upon us.

I would in no case vote to convict this man, he is an American Hero, nuff said.

Drones in law enforcement

1stamendment,1983civilrights action and an aggressive lawyer should take care of police retaliation. This artist has been given a dream marketing opp. For his art.
when I was a police officer I lost a fellow officer in a helicopter crash. Drones provide a cheap inexpensive alternative to choppers eyes in the sky. We as a society need this high tech police protection,unless you accept street crimes are acceptable. It isamajor leap in our protection but should be limited in its uses w strict invasion of privacy restriction. In the confines of fenced yards these eyes in sky need warrants from ths w probable cause. Peeking in houses should be prosecuted even if done by police. What the police are watching should be monitored by public. There is a job for sis recipients could handle.

Street Art

Trespassing and vandalism? Possibly.
Forgery? Hardly.

Yet another example of why the NYPD needs to be taken down a notch. Factoring in their past aggressiveness regarding the Occupy movement, this is just another thuggish attempt to control a situation that is beyond their grasp.

By elevating it to this level, all they've done is encourage further public dissent and distrust.